Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

The employment numbers don't really correlate with who may or may not be in need of adequate healthcare. Even if they did 3.5% would indicate millions of people who have none. I prefer not to disregard them.

 

First- the 3.5 number does not include all those considered to be not seeking work.
If you are not receiving unemployment benefits, you are no longer considered unemployed. The real number is estimated by many sources at around 7.5%

The next aspect is that a large number of those who are employed at the bottom of the spectrum don't care to do anything more than get by for the moment. They work just enough to cover this week- next week is a long ways off. They have no intention of providing for the unexpected or for a speculative expense like health care which must be purchased in advance of need.

I've been a business owner for over 50 years. Sadly the number of people looking for just enough to get along- is large. I don't mean they don't want more; I mean they aren't willing to build the skills or attributes needed to make the money to support it. It's not physical capacity- it's attitude and mental perspective, personal responsibility. Things like that. The ethical values of people vary widely- some people are regulated by their moral character for example, and feel it's important to be worth what they are paid. Others feel no such obligation, and do as little as possible. At the bottom end of the employment structure, which comes down to entry level people, to the unskilled and unmotivated, there is little choice- you often have to hire two to get the job of one done, and literally they are the poorest value. At that level of income, they can't afford insurance, and many would quit if forced to participate as it would leave them too little.

All programs that starts giving benefits away have a common weakness- they set a precedent. IF it's reasonable to give everyone health care, why not to give them shelter- meaning housing. Then, provide their food. Both of those can be described as being fundamental necessities, so it is only a slight stretch of the entitlement. Then comes guaranteed income, guaranteed education, guaranteed everything.
None of the people advocating these things can tell us where the money is coming from- and independent analysis of such grand ideas usually put the cost at several time that stated by the ones proposing it.

I don't know how to make other people find motivation. The best teacher I ever knew once told me that in the process of education, two factors are required. One is a teacher with the skill and desire to teach- and the other is a student with the will and desire to learn. He points out that no matter how well he teaches what he knows, he cannot force the student to want to learn. The same is true in the way we accept responsibility for ourselves. You have to choose to do that, and live by it. Unfortunately we have a lot of people who aren't interested in being responsible for themselves. They think that if YOU are willing to take care of my needs, why should I?

 

I’m continuously reminded of the Howard Stern show and a few of his whack pack over the years. They’ve bragged repeatedly how they’ve lived all their lives on unemployment and I only think, if these morons are able to exploit it imagine how many others are doing? And all of them can work, but they don’t because they’re lazy ****s. Just extrapolate that out to the mass population and it should make your blood boil.

 

If the numbers are as high as people seem to think then it certainly does make me angry. It doesn't make me angry \enough that I think that they should die or suffer through a debilitating illness though. That said, I honestly don't believe that the number of people who just want other people to take care of them while they live at the bare minimum is as high as some seem to think.

 

Yeah, you're right.
Some of the main drivers of the economy aren't relevant.

 

You dont need UHC for a small minority

 

You do need universal healthcare for a small minority. You don't need Medicare for all. I think we need the former, not the latter unless the latter turns out to be the best way to get to the former. As I've said, I don't have the "best solution", but we need to make sure that everyone has comprehensive healthcare.

 

Medicaid exists

 

I think you misunderstand my point. Of course that stuff matters as drivers of the economy. Here's your original post that got this line started:

"Imagine that, $320k home, $33k auto, cable, internet, electronic gadgets, sporting and music events, esting out, vacations in Cancun, cigarettes, alcohol, brand clothing, ......can't pay medical bills "

Your quoted numbers are correct, or close to correct in terms of averages across the entire population. When I say that they're not relevant I mean that they're not relevant in terms of your original post. It doesn't matter what an average may be across the entire population when the discussion is about those who have inadequate healthcare or none at all. It would be my educated guess that the value of their homes and cars are probably a lot lower than what you quoted. I'd also suspect that most of them aren't regular consumers of major sporting and music events … nor do they take trips to Cancun.

 

It's been made very clear that costs would be distributed as taxes is. So, those with high incomes would pay a higher percent.

Today, Medicare is paid with a combination of income and payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are capped so that well paid employees don't even pay payroll tax for much of the year!!

We're leaning on employees who pay a higher percent of their income in payroll tax than do high income workers.

Plus, we're leavng far too many of those with low incomes without adequate healthcare. Refusing to make those people healthy is not saving us money overall. Having people go bankrupt or lose their jobs due to health just pushes more people into our social safetynet. It's a bad choice even if the issues of morality get ignored.

 

the USA spend $3.5 trillion a year on healthcare costs.

Medicare-for-All would cost about the same, minus the fees paid to insurance agencies.

 

Agreed.

Plus, there are other costs of our system that are related to those who can't pay for healthcare or avoid it due to cost. The cost of bankruptcy isn't usually counted as a healthcare cost even when healthcare is the reason. There are lost hours of work that are avoidable. There are those who end up in our social safetynet where those costs aren't counted as healthcare even though health is the root reason.

 

When the social security program was created, there was a great deal of concerns about the long-term viability- with good cause. My father told me he listened to FDR explain that while factors would shift some, under the worst case scenario deductions would never exceed 3%. Today, it is 6.2%; double the worst case scenario. More shocking is the taxable base. When I got my first job, the taxes applied to your first $5000 in earnings- a number which I thought at the time might be impossible to reach any time soon. Today, that 12.4% is collected on your first 132,900, which is way beyond in proportion as the $5K to me at that time. We have dems advocating raising that number to $400K, and eventually phasing out any limit. Of course, benefits do not raise in proportion to contributions; the more you pay the less in proportion you get in benefits. Money is being "redistributed" in the process.

The more government controls anything- the farther out of reason the costs get. That's true for both parties; though I believe the dems are the most wasteful. One guideline everyone of us should not forget- Never trust government. Government is an institution; it does not have character, and no compulsion to keep their word. They actually have a policy that states "nothing we say is binding on us".

 

Medicare has been efficient and successful for a LONG time now, with management costs below those of insurance companies.

And,, that's been true even as Republicans have consistantly attempted to kill or depreciate it.

Without Medicare, we'd be back in the old days of retirees who have worked their full lives not being able to pay what it costs to not die. And, the rason is that private enterprise has no interest in solving that problem.

I like private enterpise a LOT. But, it doesn't work unless there is a model that allows for profit (or at least sustainability for a nonprofit).

 

My little example was really just an indictment of the morality of this era.

All I was pointing out is that, no matter what tax scheme is used to pay for UHC, the rich are going to pay a lot more than they do now. A lot more. And they are going to resist, including liberals.

 

I think that will be a challenge.

In general, the rich have been winning on taxes on a regular basis.

So, we have a STUPENDOUS deficit right now, and no willingness to pay for what we buy.

And, that's a direct demonstration of your point, I think.

 

I've heard that before, Will, but I have never seen an unbiased scientific study that proves it.

What I have seen is how amazingly cost-efficient private industry can be.

I'll never forget the time I visited the Olympia Brewery. Our guide explained that the broken glass, waste cardboard, and broken pallets were all recycled. The bi-products of brewing were given to local farmers and ranchers for their hogs. About the only thing that went out in the garbage was lunch room trash. Everything that came in to that place came out as beer or was recycled or used somehow.

My wife works in private industry. The pressure to produce is never ending, and supervisors keep track of the employees' numbers.

I know from experience that government does not operate like that. I know the atmosphere that government employees work in. It is very relaxed compared to private industry.

So I'm a bit skeptical.

It would be interesting to find out how much it costs Medicare to pay out $1 million in benefits and how much it costs a private insurance company to pay out $1 million in benefits.

 

Medicare costs my family $800 a month, plus a supplemental policy that picks up the slack- so a Grand a month..... Cheap you think? In my case- vastly profitable for the system.
Most importantly- it's not my choice to make. That is an suspension of freedom, which I don't approve of under any circumstances.

 

You're also in the age catagory that is the most expensive by FAR. There is no way an insurance company would supply you with that coverage at that rate - let alone including your family.

Some of our solutions need to be for the full population in order to work. We can't individually decide how much to spend on national defense. People in cities can't have arbitrary numbers of competing water and electric companies that have separate physical infrasructure. We can't have rational coverage of those who can't pay their own food bill by suggesting private enterprise will do it - because, we know for an absolute certainty that it won't.

 

They do, they’re just waiting for Trump to come up with it.

 

Ask a working Canadien about their "free" healthcare. Ask them about their wait times. Ask them why they choose to come to the states for certain medical procedures and pay out of pocket instead of using their "free" healthcare. Ask them if their only astronomical tax is income tax. The Canadien govt uses such a large portion of income tax for healthcare that taxes on other necessary items such as food, gas and utilities are raised through the roof. Canadiens are paying equivalent to $5.25/gal US for gas right now. Ask a Canadien about their Federal and Provincial tax on all goods and services. Ask a Canadien how much does the GST and the PST add to the cost of everything they buy. Don't be fooled by Warren telling you that taxing the rich will pay for America's free healthcare. It won't even come close.

 

Not just that it's massively expensive and requires big tax hikes for the middle class, it takes away everyone's private insurance, whether they like it or not, which is just wrong. 70% of people like their coverage and private insurance according to Gallup (https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx). Also once people realize this they are more in favor of a public option, than M4A, which is a way better and more reasonable policy. (https://www.kff.org/slideshow/publi...ns-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

So simply put, doubling everyone's taxes and taking away their private insurance, will not be a benefit for most people, aside from a whole list of other problems with M4A.

 

Because it is immoral to demand through force of law that someone else should pay my medical expenses.

 

Then you should volunteer to pay the bills- live by the values you think others should live by. Set an example..... promote dependency and weakness and forcing other people to subsidize you as the way of the future.

Somehow, people managed to survive in all the years between the founding of the nation and the beginning of socialistic programs. They had far less, worked far harder in order for the people alive today to have a better life. And while there is no question that we have been given tremendous gifts and lifts by those people, we are so ungrateful that a large percentage of us think that they owe nothing back, and society owes them. How is it possible that those people even survived to create future generations? Some kind of miracle? Must be. Certainly if today's population were suddenly taken back in time and had to live in the world of the early 1800's, they would all lay down and die, because they simply couldn't cut it- and OPM wasn't available for the whining.

 

Some also might argue that it's immoral to let your fellow citizens suffer while you stand by.